The Tory party was Remainist, so obviously, they were actually all Remainers in disguise.

Well actually, no. The government position was for Remain, and this was a position supported by the Labour Party, LibDem Party and Scottish Nationalist Party[1]. The Conservative Party has been divided on the issue since time immemorial.

David Cameron and George Osborne, in the tradition of Thatcher, are - I believe - genuinely pro-EU. As is former-PM Sir John Major.

However, there were plenty of members of Government whose personal beliefs differ from their leadership. PM-in-waiting Theresa May is one example - she generally sits on the right wing of the party, and is thought to favour Leaving[2]. Likewise, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond is a long-standing Euro-sceptic.

The divisions in the party are real and have always been there. Don't let the obvious (and now spectacularly backfiring) posturing of Johnson and Gove make you think that all Tories are pro-EU.

Similarly - or, in fact, in total contrast - while the Labour Party has in recent years been pro-EU, its leader is one of the old guard left wing of the party who have never wanted to be in the EU, and campaigned to leave in 1975.

--

The Article 50 question is altogether more complicated. Suffice to say that whoever invokes it will, in doing so, effectively end their own political careers, such will be the fallout. And, thus, with every passing day it becomes less and less likely. Remember, Cameron, during the campaign, promised to invoke it straight away in the event of a Leave vote - he didn't.

The UK is in no position to negotiate anything at the moment - I don't mean in terms of political stability or capital or having friends in Brussels, Paris or Berlin, though this is important. I also don't mean in terms of having a clear plan of what we want to achieve from the negotiations - although this, too, is crucial. I mean, quite simply, that we don't have anybody qualified, experienced or talented enough to actually conduct such significant negotiations under such immense time pressures.

He shook his head sadly and told me that endemic drug use had compelled him to give up a promising career. "Even one small local race, prize was a salami, and I see doping!" - Tim Moore: Gironimo (Riding the Very Terrible 1914 Tour of Italy)

Well actually, no. The government position was for Remain, and this was a position supported by the Labour Party, LibDem Party and Scottish Nationalist Party[1]. The Conservative Party has been divided on the issue since time immemorial.

David Cameron and George Osborne, in the tradition of Thatcher, are - I believe - genuinely pro-EU. As is former-PM Sir John Major.

However, there were plenty of members of Government whose personal beliefs differ from their leadership. PM-in-waiting Theresa May is one example - she generally sits on the right wing of the party, and is thought to favour Leaving[2]. Likewise, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond is a long-standing Euro-sceptic.

The divisions in the party are real and have always been there. Don't let the obvious (and now spectacularly backfiring) posturing of Johnson and Gove make you think that all Tories are pro-EU.

Similarly - or, in fact, in total contrast - while the Labour Party has in recent years been pro-EU, its leader is one of the old guard left wing of the party who have never wanted to be in the EU, and campaigned to leave in 1975.

This is probably why she actually has a shot at becoming party leader, while Osborne and Boris don't

Thanks CJ for being respectful in your contradiction (changes from other posters) and thanks for information.

I'm aware of the apparent divisions within the Tory party and am also aware of Corbyn's turncoat since 1975.

My objection though is why do these people stay in the Tory party if they have had such a disagreement with all the leaders of it since Britain has joined in (for Thatcher was a Europeist, you said it but some argued otherwise). Why didn't they defect to Ukip. After all it's such a core issue and they should have put their ideas in agreement with facts. In France several politicians have left the Socialist party or the Republican Party because they were sovereigntists with respect to the EU (but not even campaigning to leave it all out, just wishing to renegotiate the treaties.

With regards to negotiation it would surprise me that such a major country with a long history does not have one good negotiator to seal an agreement with other EU members. Economically-wise the UK is definitely in a position to negotiate. Several other EU members have a trade surplus with the UK, like France (due to low oil price that France imports from Scotland), so they have a lot to lose if they cannot find an agreement with the UK. Besides, the pound devaluation increases British competitivit since they export more easily.

My objection though is why do these people stay in the Tory party if they have had such a disagreement with all the leaders of it since Britain has joined in (for Thatcher was a Europeist, you said it but some argued otherwise). Why didn't they defect to Ukip.

I think the trilogy of golden rules of politics can answer your question.

Tory MPs like being Tory MPs. They like being in Government. They like that they have the chance to move up the greasy pole of ministerial politics.

Sure, Douglas Carswell won his by-election, but his constituency has a demographic make-up unlike most of the UK. Eurosceptic Tory MPs in safe Tory seats would gain nothing and lose everything by defecting. The Tories would just put up another candidate, and the automatons in the voting booth would tick the box with the picture of the pretty tree. Whatever might be inferred from polls and European elections (and, indeed, this referendum), there just isn't the sort of groundswell of support that would make UKIP a viable Westminster party.

David Cameron and George Osborne, in the tradition of Thatcher, are - I believe - genuinely pro-EU. As is former-PM Sir John Major. ...

The rest of your post is, as ever, well-written and insightful, but...

The tradition of Thatcher and her government was to attempt to shape the EU as she wanted it. Given that Thatcher's downfall was engineered by Europhiles: Geoffrey Howe and Michael Heseltine, because of Thatcher's reluctance to join the ERM, it is a stretch to say that she was pro-EU in 1980s terms let alone in today's terms. The three subsequent PMs (Major, Blair, Brown) all signed over significant power to the EU without any mandate from the British people and Cameron promised, and failed to deliver, a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. So where we are now bears no relation to the situation she was trying to manage, and I believe her view in recent times was that it is no longer in Britain's best interest to remain.

I agree with your assessment of UKIP as a Westminster party but I think its ability to shift the Conservative party rightwards shouldn't be underestimated. The Conservatives are essentially a large right of centre coalition who's sole strategy is to gain power by defeating Labour. As for Labour, it looks as if the massive coalition of entirely disparate classes and cultures that Blair once commanded is in the process of fragmentation; How it re-combines will shape what sort of Conservative Party is required to defeat it. In other words, the less credible a future Labour Government is, the more Conservative MPs will stray from central control. They won't need to join UKIP to be in a brexit party, they'll be in a brexit party within a party.

I agree with your assessment of UKIP as a Westminster party but I think its ability to shift the Conservative party rightwards shouldn't be underestimated. The Conservatives are essentially a large right of centre coalition who's sole strategy is to gain power by defeating Labour. As for Labour, it looks as if the massive coalition of entirely disparate classes and cultures that Blair once commanded is in the process of fragmentation; How it re-combines will shape what sort of Conservative Party is required to defeat it. In other words, the less credible a future Labour Government is, the more Conservative MPs will stray from central control.

Had a quick read but she did legitimize the European Community in it (as a means to achieve prosperity). But more importantly acts matter more than words. A lot of states(wo)men have spoken up against the EU without ever acting against it.

By the way, what would Europeists say about Jean-Claude Juncker's will to impose the EU-Canada free-trade agreement WITHOUT passing b the national parliaments? Of course, ultimately the Parliaments will have to vote and obviously will. It does not change a lot for me because in my opinion this agreement should never pass, even by a referendum but the idea that Mr Juncker wished to impose it upon us in a dictatorial way speaks volume about the EU Commission's methods and I guess none of you would accept these methods if you were honest with yourselves but Europe is such an ideology that you seem all to be blinded.

Another positive thing about the Brexit, though it's a minor detail is that now English should no longer be an official language in the European Union because only the UK nominated it (Ireland nominated Gaelic). So that means that the influence of the English language will be less prevalent here in Brussels. Hopefully there will no longer be any announcement in English in public transports but only in French and Dutch. That really bothered me. English is not an official language here and many announcements in Brussels are strictly written in English. Being fluent in English, it's of course not a problem for me but for many Brusselers who only speak French or Dutch or even the Brussels dialect, they would feel like a foreigner in their own town. I recently saw a debate on the local TV channel and even some left-wing regional MP's realised that that was a problem.

I feel like the omnipresence of the English language in my city is way more of a hreat to my identity than immigration. After all most migrants I know do speak French or even Dutch.

Another positive thing about the Brexit, though it's a minor detail is that now English should no longer be an official language in the European Union because only the UK nominated it (Ireland nominated Gaelic). So that means that the influence of the English language will be less prevalent here in Brussels. Hopefully there will no longer be any announcement in English in public transports but only in French and Dutch. That really bothered me. English is not an official language here and many announcements in Brussels are strictly written in English. Being fluent in English, it's of course not a problem for me but for many Brusselers who only speak French or Dutch or even the Brussels dialect, they would feel like a foreigner in their own town. I recently saw a debate on the local TV channel and even some left-wing regional MP's realised that that was a problem.

I feel like the omnipresence of the English language in my city is way more of a hreat to my identity than immigration. After all most migrants I know do speak French or even Dutch.

The Walloon Parliament and the Parliament of the Brussels Region voted against the EU-Canada free trade agreement. The Flemish government is of course in favour of it since it "creates export jobs". Very soon the corrupt Euro Parliament and parliaments of all 28 member states will probably give a green light to it. First step towards the TTIP.

(From today's De Tijd)

Vayerism, do you agree on that agreement and still consider yourself a socialist?

So the Flemings are keen to keep the CETA with Canada but inside the article they talk about fears that it would impair the European environmental and social rules. It's good for shareholders and multinationals but bad for farmers, consumers, workers, retired people, women, younsters, small businesses, etc.

CETA is a testcase for the TTIP. A huge demonstration is planned on Sep 20 in he Euro area in Brussels against the two new trade agreements.

The CETA-Treaty would scrap 92% of currently existing import tariffs. The Minister-President of the Flemish Region sas it would boost Flemish apple and pear grower's production. The hypocrite does not say that the EU sanctions against Russia bleeds Flemish fruit production.

I'm still baffled that UK Remain voters who have some sort of social orientation can approve of this because by their act they did it. Remember that the TTIP does not just concern tariff barriers (after all most have already been scrapped) but also non-tariff barriers, which means health barriers: products that we reject because they are unhealthy. We might get hormone-based beef on our plates very soon.

I guess we will all see this one way or the other - but I think it is fantastic that the extremist hawks will have to account for their (lack of) Brexit plans to the elected chamber. A chance for many of the lies of the Brexiteers campaign that hoodwinked a tiny majority of the public to be fully exposed...

As I say we are all a bit partial one way or t'other

... & dont get me started on why in post Brexit Britain, after a nearly 100 years of not wearing them it is an essential unalienable right for our national football team to wear a poppy... this argument didnt happen in post war 40's Britain, in the world cup winning 60's, 70's... etc etc